Pleasing God by Faith
In a now very familiar verse, James writes in James 2:19:
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Someone may say that he has faith, but what is the true measure of faith of what God said? It is doing what He said. When God says, this is how He wants something done, that’s how someone should do it and without exception. That is faith in God. And most of you probably already know that “without faith, it is impossible to please Him” (Hebrews 11:6).
Pleasing God is the purpose for mankind on earth (Revelation 4:11). Only from God’s Word do men know the standard or basis for pleasing Him. God will judge men based on what He says (John 12:48). The just shall live by faith (Romans 1:17) and faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). Man lives by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4).
Since the Bible is the source book, the veritable handbook, for how to live and to please Him, that is what He wants men to follow carefully and diligently. Solomon says at the end of Ecclesiastes that keeping God’s commandments is the whole duty of man (Ecclesiastes 12:12-13). Those commandments are in the Bible.
God’s Judgment
In the end, God at the least will judge everyone at two judgment seats: (1) the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15) and (2) the Bema Seat Judgment (2 Corinthians 5:10, Romans 14:10). The former is for unbelievers or the unsaved and the latter is for believers or the saved. Both judgments are very important and do relate to obeying God and in particular how to do what God wants men to do.
God will punish unbelievers for their sin. Their works fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). God will reward believers for their works, so the Bema Seat Judgment means the gaining or the loss of rewards. Both relate to pleasing God. Romans 8:8 says that the unbeliever cannot please God (Romans 8:8). The believer can please Him and God will reward Him when He does.
Living by faith means living a life regulated by what God said: doing what He says to do and not doing what He says not to do. This means not just doing what God said, but doing it how He said. Scripture is replete with examples of men failing to submit to how God wanted it done and God punishing them for it.
How God Wants His Work Done
How God wants done what He wants done gets short shrift today most often. God cares how what He wants gets done. Not doing it how He wants will effect what He wants. He rejects things done in the wrong way or manner. What to do and how to do it feed off each other.
In the age in which we live, God wants His work done in, through, and by the church. In the Old Testament, God used Israel. Also within Israel God regulated how He wanted His work done in, through, and by Israel.
The Church, the Only Acceptable Means of God’s Work Today
The New Testament reveals God’s work done only through the church in this period, the church age. According to the New Testament, the church is sufficient to accomplish God’s work. Living by faith and pleasing God requires accomplishing His work in the way God shows to do it. The New Testament teaches only the church for doing His work. Doing it another way than the church is an invention of men and God isn’t pleased when someone does God’s work a different way. It isn’t obeying God, so it isn’t living by faith.
People who won’t do God’s will His way are not pleasing Him. Perhaps people will not do it like God said because they’re not saved. Scripture shows this to be the case. On the other hand, saved people will lose rewards for not doing what God said how He said to do it.
It is not obeying God or loving God to do what He said a different way than what He said. The church is the only way. All of the God’s work can be done through the church. God does not approve of doing His work a different way than what He said. Because God’s Word is sufficient, the church is sufficient for all of God’s work.
Thank you for writing, I agree with everything. The Apostle Paul warned the Ephesians with tears that wolves will enter Churches to destroy them, and among good Churches unconverted men will rise and draw away disciples after them (Acts 20:29-31). I don’t think it innovative to suggest both types despise authority, particularly Church authority, and an individual’s attitude toward Church authority as a good barometer of where they’re at spiritually. The antidote for handling such people is for Churches to well know, understand, and apply the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27-28,32). These that spare not the flock and lead disciples away can only succeed in a climate of Scriptural ignorance. The Bible has built in procedures for dealing with such disorderly false brothers. There may also be merit in thinking about God’s method of chastising Israel in the Old Testament, often (but not always) by allowing or raising up adversaries, both internal or external, to the disobedient sons of God (e.g. the Philistines or King Jeroboam).
This is interesting. You said:
“The church is the only way. All of the God’s work can be done through the church. God does not approve of doing His work a different way than what He said. Because God’s Word is sufficient, the church is sufficient for all of God’s work.”
How does this relate to church authority? Does this sufficiency extend to authority? With so many churches now going haywire, how should one church or one person relate to another faithful church on the matter of that church’s authority?
I know of a situation where a young man professed salvation, and the Baptist church he was attending for several years (not as a member) would not baptize him because they wanted to see more fruit. He went to another Baptist church and they agreed to baptize him into their church.
What do you do with something like this? Should the other pastor have respected the authority of the church the man attended? I realize you do not have all the details and I am not looking for a judgment, just some principles.
Thanks Benjamin.
Frank,
I’ll answer your questions. I cut and pasted them.
How does this relate to church authority? Doing what God wants relates to authority, because we should do what He told us to do. He is the highest authority.
Does this sufficiency extend to authority? The post I wrote doesn’t deal with this, but a church must be a true church, which means it has authority.
With so many churches now going haywire, how should one church or one person relate to another faithful church on the matter of that church’s authority? Some people just don’t understand, so tell them what they need to know.
You wrote: “I know of a situation where a young man professed salvation, and the Baptist church he was attending for several years (not as a member) would not baptize him because they wanted to see more fruit. He went to another Baptist church and they agreed to baptize him into their church.”
What do you do with something like this? If the first church was judging properly, perhaps you could help explain this to the young man.
Should the other pastor have respected the authority of the church the man attended? If that church had authority, he should have respected it.
It is hard to judge without any detail of what’s going on and it would be better to talk about it.
I am not saying you are weakening church authority, but this response seems to do that.
“How does this relate to church authority? Doing what God wants relates to authority, because we should do what He told us to do. He is the highest authority.”
Having read your book, “A Pure Church”, I would have expected a more forceful defense of the authority of a church. What you said seems to leave the door open to each person judging these things on his own. This seems to make each man a judge of what a church does, individually determining if it is according to the will of God.
I expected something more like, “True churches are each the pillar and ground of the truth and the embassy of God’s kingdom on the earth with the power to bind and loose, baptize and catechize. It is the seat of God’s authority on this Earth until Christ returns.”
Again, I say “seems.” Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying.
Frank,
Are you really Frank? Hard to believe, especially with your email address. I’m guessing it’s a made-up name.
What’s the point of your comment? Are you just really challenging my belief in church authority? Churches that have authority do not have authority to disobey scripture. Jesus is the Head of true churches, and they don’t have authority to disobey Him. Autonomy of the church doesn’t excuse false doctrine and practice. I can’t really even judge what you’re talking about, because it’s so ambiguous. And then, because I don’t really know what’s going on, you question my belief in church authority? Interesting.
Churches are the pillar and ground of the truth, it’s true. “The truth” not the pillar and ground of lies. If a church said, You have to pray through Mary or the physical presence of Christ is in the elements, is the church authority superior to the truth in these instances? That’s not a pure church.
This looks like another swipe at church authority. I asked you about church authority in relation to faith in God and the sufficiency of the church. You respond with two paragraphs on what a church cannot do, and nothing affirming the position and authority of a local church.
What is the first “swipe” at church authority? Scripture teaches the autonomy of the church, but I’m not going to sign off on a church doing something unscriptural. That’s where it moves into the pope and Roman Catholicism. Baptists, true churches, believe the Bible is the final authority for faith and practice. There are other elements here too. I believe in “church authority,” which is the church. This is not the same as pastoral authority, which I also believe, but pastors are also under the authority of the church. In addition, both the church and the pastor are under the authority of Jesus as its Head. I would say that to you, anonymous now, not Frank it seems, that is a swipe at authority.
This post wasn’t about authority, but whatever tenuous or spider web like connection it had, you were waiting to find something to write on authority. THat’s what’s interesting to me. That’s why I am asking, where is this coming from? Why not just get right to the point? This is called being a troll, anonymous.
I did not intend to submit that anonymously. That was also not my full comment. I must have done something incorrectly.
The two swipes are your first two comments to me. In your post you wrote:
“The New Testament reveals God’s work done only through the church in this period, the church age. According to the New Testament, the church is sufficient to accomplish God’s work.”
I then assume churches are sufficient to make authoritative decisions, and as Baptists we would affirm that we believe the activity of a church as a group is guided by the Holy Spirit is the will of God, unless very clearly shown to be otherwise. We give churches the same deference we give fathers. If a son says, “My dad lied” and the dad affirms he did not, we would support the father 100% of the time.
In “A Pure Church” you wrote,
“God has the church to judge spiritual matters in the age in which we live as the pillar and ground of the truth.” You also wrote, “God gave churches and nothing more than churches the capacity to protect and propagate the truth.”
I notice your comments now are not like that. I ask how church authority fits into this, a reasonable question since this is a and you say, “Churches that have authority do not have authority to disobey scripture.” No affirmation, only the restrictions.
Who is judging whether another true church is obeying or disobeying scripture? Who has that authority?
I made zero swipes at church authority. Zero. I don’t disavow in any way the contents of A Pure Church, our book on Ecclesiastical Separation.
Church decisions are not authoritative if they disobey scripture. I’ve written a lot about that too. And that is affirmed in our book, A Pure Church. All authority comes from God. Church decisions are authoritative if they are scriptural. A claim of church authority or autonomy does not undo false doctrine and practice.
If the Bible teaches a particular doctrine and then churches agree with that through history, and then one church goes off that doctrine and practice, that church isn’t correct because it has authority. Just because the whole church judges it to be correct doesn’t mean that I count it as correct. I won’t do that.
I don’t affirm that the activity of a church is guided by the will of God if it contradicts scripture. Our church wouldn’t do that either. I don’t know what you are trying to get at with this or what is the issue here. I also don’t understand how or why that you are writing this. I’m asking, what’s the point? You’re not taking this from anything that I’ve written. You’re reading something into what I’ve written, and you’re not telling me what it is.
In my assessment, Frank is looking for a paradox that doesn’t exist. Likely as a pretext to dismiss the sufficiency of the [local] Church. That is the sense I get reading his comments. Of course, he can clarify himself, and answer your question if I’m wrong…
“I ask how church authority fits into this, a reasonable question since this is a post on the sufficiency of the church and you say,”
This is how that sentence is supposed to read. Please update.
If I say, “You are writing about faith in God and the sufficiency of the church; where does the authority of a church fit into that?” and you say, “Churches do not have authority to disobey scripture”, and that is all, that is both true and a swipe at authority.
If you as a pastor were dealing with a wayward member and said, “Do you believe the Lord gives pastors authority in the church?” and their response was. “They do not have authority to disobey the Bible”, that is both true and a swipe at pastoral authority.
You can say it is not, but saying it does not make it so. It is, and it obviously is.
Frank, it does not seem to me, an outside observer, that you understand authority that well. Authority is delegated from a superior source. All authority comes from God. Delegated authority does not mean the steward of that authority becomes the authority or is no longer subjected to it himself. For example, a military commander has Title 10 authority. He does not get a free pass to disobey the USMJ or other US Laws. Those under his authority are only obligated to obey his lawful orders. The commander is still subjected to the authority over him. In like manner, a Pastor has authority delegated to him from the Church. The Church has authority delegated to it from God. Neither a Pastor nor a Church are free to disobey Scripture. Churches are sufficient to judge controversies within themselves. They have authority to do that.
“USMJ” should be: Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)* My apologies.
“Frank”,
It seems that some pastors like the idea of being above the Word of God and lording it over the people. As a pastor myself, I think that when somebody says “[A pastor does] not have the authority to disobey the Bible”, and somebody is offended by that, I’d take that (offense) as a swipe at the authority of the Bible, because it is.
Kent,
“Who is judging whether another true church is obeying or disobeying scripture? Who has that authority?”
Great question since how can one independent autonomous church judge another if they are disobeying?
Impossible. That is why the autonomy of the local church is not taught in scripture.
Tom
You’re wrong, Tom. Scripture teaches the authority of the church, which is local only.
Then please clarify based on that assumption.
You did not answer the question.
“Who is judging whether another true church is obeying or disobeying scripture? Who has that authority?”
Tom
Each true church is under Jesus as its Head, and he gives that judgment to each church. Even until a mission is a church, it is under a church. And a church judges like 1 Corinthians 6, which is powerful.
I must say I’m a bit confused by the post, especially the end: The New Testament teaches only the church for doing His work.
It seems that God uses individuals all the time to do his work, and the things they do are not commissioned (or even known about) by the church. I recently read your post about TDR and he is constantly handing out Christian tracts. Does he need permission from the church to do this? I pray with many of my clients, and have no specific church authority or commission for doing so. What about parachurch ministries? Is there no place for them unless they are directly subservient to a local church? I must admit I haven’t studied the theology of church very thoroughly, but I have studied the principles of “faith at work” and it seems that the workplace is often a great place to do the Lord’s work six days a week. Isn’t making tents His work? Or in my case, designing and implementing charitable and estate plans?
Hi Brent,
Romans 10:15, how shall they preach unless they be sent? Why the need for sending? Jesus said, I have all authority in heaven and earth, and go ye (Mark 16), teach all nations (Matthew 28), plural verbs. He mandates the group, because the command is make disciples, and the whole church necessary for that. The presentation of the body as a living sacrifice means the individual member fitting into the body (Romans 12:1-3, see 3). I can keep going. You don’t operate as a free agent in scripture. Everyone functions within a church in the NT. Why did Paul need to go back and report? What’s the point of that in Acts?
Individuals do the work, but in and through a church. Outside of that is disobedience. Someone just free floating out there is not obedient. Everyone needs to fit into a church. Christ is the Head of the body, and members submit under His headship.
Frank is from Maine and presented himself by many different names.
I do have a very strong opinion about guys who operate this way. Maybe we’ll talk in person some day, Frank, and I’ll tell you in person.